Bug#339829: Lintian home page check
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 04:34:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now that dpkg has the Homepage field[1], shall I update the patch to warn when the homepage is in the description instead of the new field? Or should we wait for policy and the devref to be updated? The next version of lintian will not warn about Homepage headers in packages and will warn (at the info level for right now) about Homepage pseudo-headers in the extended description. I'm still not sure that the original patch in this bug report (trying to guess at whether a random URL found in the extended description should be a homepage) is really a good idea. I personally would vote for closing this bug. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#339829: Lintian home page check
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 00:43 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: I'm still not sure that the original patch in this bug report (trying to guess at whether a random URL found in the extended description should be a homepage) is really a good idea. I personally would vote for closing this bug. I agree that the last-paragraph test isn't necessarily a good idea now, but I still think there are some useful things in the patch. Firstly, extra phrases for the description check. These are based on stuff I saw in the archive and this is the match used in the last version: m/(homepage|webpage|website|url|upstream|web site|home page|further information|more info|official site|project home)/is Looking at today's sid Packages, here are some others: Upstream URL Upstream webpage Just the url on the last line by itself. Secondly, checking for best-practise CPAN homepages. This basically just checks if there is a version at the end of the URL. IMO I got this wrong and the URLs used should be like this: http://search.cpan.org/search?module=Chart::Base Instead of like this: http://search.cpan.org/~chartgrp/Chart/ I'd suggest consensus about this be sought on debian-perl before adding this to lintian though. Also, I saw 3 packages that use the Url: field instead of the Homepage: field. Probably isn't worth adding a lintian test for this and instead bugs could be filed. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#339829: Lintian home page check
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now that dpkg has the Homepage field[1], shall I update the patch to warn when the homepage is in the description instead of the new field? Or should we wait for policy and the devref to be updated? 1. http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dpkg/news/20070905T053202Z.html The next version of lintian will not warn about Homepage headers in packages and will warn (at the info level for right now) about Homepage pseudo-headers in the extended description. I'm still not sure that the original patch in this bug report (trying to guess at whether a random URL found in the extended description should be a homepage) is really a good idea. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#339829: Lintian home page check
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 17:14 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I really think the effort would be better spent standardizing an optional URL field in Policy so that people can start using that, package build tools can be updated where necessary to handle it, and package viewing and installation tools can start to look for it. In the meantime, packagers can start using XBS-URL right now and the right thing will happen. Now that dpkg has the Homepage field[1], shall I update the patch to warn when the homepage is in the description instead of the new field? Or should we wait for policy and the devref to be updated? 1. http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dpkg/news/20070905T053202Z.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#339829: Lintian home page check
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 17:14 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I really think the effort would be better spent standardizing an optional URL field in Policy so that people can start using that, package build tools can be updated where necessary to handle it, and package viewing and installation tools can start to look for it. In the meantime, packagers can start using XBS-URL right now and the right thing will happen. Now that dpkg has the Homepage field[1], shall I update the patch to warn when the homepage is in the description instead of the new field? Or should we wait for policy and the devref to be updated? 1. http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dpkg/news/20070905T053202Z.html We should probably wait for devref and Policy, although that's been hampered by no one on the Policy delegation having any time at all to work on Policy. :/ -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#339829: Lintian home page check
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 05:14:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Hello folks, Since I just spent some time looking over the discussion and the patch in lintian bug #339829 to check for the Homepage information in the description of packages and decided not to apply it, I figured I should let you know why it made me uncomfortable. This doesn't mean that another lintian maintainer won't apply it; it's just a personal opinion. I know a lot of people are using this (and I even include it on my own packages), but putting meta-information in a specific format in a free-form text field is fundamentally a bad idea. Creating a new URL control header that package management software and other scripts can read and parse and that has a standardized format is the right thing to do. Checking for URLs in package descriptions with messy heuristics that one would have to override if lintian gets the check wrong provokes a bit of an ew reaction. I really think the effort would be better spent standardizing an optional URL field in Policy so that people can start using that, package build tools can be updated where necessary to handle it, and package viewing and installation tools can start to look for it. In the meantime, packagers can start using XBS-URL right now and the right thing will happen. It doesn't seem like this would be that controversial and the dpkg format was designed to be extensible in this fashion. I don't see an open Policy bug on the issue. I'd rather see people pursue that direction instead. I don't actually disagree, but afaik the dpkg doesn't have a homepage field thing has been around forever now.. And the DevRef mentions this best-practice, which essentially nobody knows about. I think its ugly, actually, and you're right, but would like whatever the the best practices are to actually be followed, implemented, and realized. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
